DeSantis is OK with NCL leaving Florida

[coaster]

https://www.wesh.com/article/desantis-norwegian-cruise-line/36420109#

 

"Norwegian's not one of the big ones, by the way. Cruise lines have been operating in other parts of the world where there's no access to vaccine,” DeSantis said. "These cruise lines are ready to go: Royal Caribbean, Carnival."

 

The governor added: "At the same time, our state policy is our state policy. But I can tell you this, if one of the smaller ones says they somehow don't want that, that niche will get filled in Florida."

 

 

FDR’s caber rattling approach not working so much…. 

Edited May 14, 2021 by coaster

[RocketMan275]

I'm sure New Orleans would welcome another ship.

Then there's Alabama too.  

Georgia?

South Carolina?

[coaster]

I thought from the beginning that FDR calling out Florida’s governor was a bad business move. Not surprised at what is transpiring now due to FDR’s recent negative comments regarding DeSantis.

Edited May 14, 2021 by coaster

[richstowe]

If a person or company doesn't support him especially $wise, desantis just doesn't care . 

Perhaps NCL can put Trump on its Board of Directors . That would get his attention . 🙄

[MichiganBound]

It will be Florida's loss.  NCL can operate it's fleet from many other non-Florida ports.

[coaster]

6 minutes ago, MichiganBound said:

It will be Florida's loss.  NCL can operate it's fleet from many other non-Florida ports.

Shame that NCL’s new $239 million terminal in Miami will go to waste…

Edited May 14, 2021 by coaster

[MichiganBound]

2 minutes ago, coaster said:

Shame NCL’s new $239 million terminal in Miami will go to waste…

Presumably someone else will purchase it if it gets to that.   Also, I expect NCL would relocate headquarters out of Florida if they stop cruising from Florida ports.  Another loss for Florida.  

[BermudaBound2014]

23 minutes ago, MichiganBound said:

It will be Florida's loss.  NCL can operate it's fleet from many other non-Florida ports.

 

OMG... this is literally made me LOL. You can't possibly believe that. You do know that NCL just invested Millions in a new terminal in PoM., correct? You think they have disposable cash to invest in terminals outside of Florida? The infrastructure already exists in Florida. This chatter is all temporary.

 

Policies are changing so rapidly its hard to keep up. NCL will be back in Florida as soon as they are able.

Edited May 14, 2021 by BermudaBound2014

[Shidah]

New Orleans would be great to have more ships leave from.  They already have the hotels etc necessary close to the port to handle demand.  I left from Miami once and said never again.  Flying to Miami is expensive.  Flying to Ft Lauderdale was cheaper, but then you had to find transportation to Miami.  

[coffeebean]

3 minutes ago, BermudaBound2014 said:

 

You might be best served to step back and look at things a bit more systemically. Florida is not going to lose NCL's revenue for any extended length of time. It's elementary business 101.

I surely hope you are correct.

[coaster]

FDR played the cancel culture game in threatening to pull out out of Florida ports  and DeSantis is calling him out on it now. I agree NCL needs Florida based ports more than we need to make FDR happy.

[HaveWeMetYet]

4 minutes ago, BermudaBound2014 said:

 

You might be best served to step back and look at things a bit more systemically. Florida is not going to lose NCL's revenue for any extended length of time. It's elementary business 101.

Exactly.

Fuel is a major expense operating a cruise ship and fuel prices are rising quickly.

Draw a line from most ports in the Caribbean to the US.

Someone will gladly take their place.

[Red-Sol]

43 minutes ago, coaster said:

Shame that NCL’s new $239 million terminal in Miami will go to waste…

Even more of a shame that the first $100 million and possibly the last $24 million of that came from Miami:

"Miami-Dade County will pay $100 million in un-reimbursable project costs toward the project. Norwegian will need to pay back the county with interest for all money over the initial $100 million and up to $215 million."

[Navis]

Both sides are posturing at this point. NCL is waiting to see what the final conditions are that come out of the CDC. To the extent it involves vaccinations at all, NCL will have all the ammunition they need to go to court and have the FL law preempted with respect to cruise lines. Even if the CDC ultimately relents and NCL decides on its own that it only wants to allow vaccinated people on board ... there is 99% (you never say 100) probability that FL would be powerless to stop them from requesting proof of vaccinations.

 

I’m sure NCL doesn’t want to do it that way (for obvious PR reasons), but the approach can be simple ... redeploy fleet while the suit is pending and just wait until the judgement is entered and then move back in. Maybe they can lease out their space in FL in the meantime? As others have said, they have a lot invested in FL and I do not think they will leave without a fight.

 

For anyone interested and who actually wants to read the case precedent.... the SCOTUS precedent is crystal clear on this one ... McCulloch ... look it up ... even a law adopted by the US CONGRESS cannot interfere with the operations of a foreign flagged vessel unless it expressly states that it intends to do so. So if US Congress can’t do so ... just imagine how much weaker FL’s argument is. That’s why none of us lawyers take DeSantis’ threats seriously at all.

 

And some of you may recall the Spector case against NCL years ago ... that case attempted to establish that cruise lines operating in the US were subject to ADA compliance. Again ... 9-0 the Supreme Court (the conservative Rehnquist court) concluded that foreign flagged vessels are exempt from US law unless said law expressly states its intent to apply to such vessels.

Edited May 14, 2021 by Navis

[Red-Sol]

1 minute ago, Heymarco said:

Oh good, so Miami has a right to claim and repurpose for another firm. 😇😂

I say go for it...NCL will then owe Nada! 🤣

 

[Yesimapirate]

It's amazing that people still don't understand or recognize political grandstanding.   This isn't even a slow news day!

[MichiganBound]

8 minutes ago, Red-Sol said:

Even more of a shame that the first $100 million and possibly the last $24 million of that came from Miami:

"Miami-Dade County will pay $100 million in un-reimbursable project costs toward the project. Norwegian will need to pay back the county with interest for all money over the initial $100 million and up to $215 million."

Good catch.  I was unaware of that.

[Navis]

1 hour ago, Heymarco said:

For someone who doesn’t know much about maritime law, how can Texas prohibit certain brands of liquor from being sold onboard while in port but Florida can’t wait ban a vaccine requirement? They are not blocking interstate travel, it’s NCL who is pushing for the strict requirement. If other firms can sail from FL, seems like there are holes in both sides. Again, open to understand the law better. 

To be clear, my area of practice is not maritime law but rather corporate M&A. That said, as a curious jurist I try to read SCOUTS cases and areas of interest from my clerking days to keep my skills sharp.

 

That said, you picked the one example that I think might be clearer than others and I think (not sure) the alcohol one is easier to answer than others. Reading the maritime cases, a very high level summary would be something to the effect of ... when docked at a port ... the ship must comply with any local law that is entirely external to its operations, but is not subject any law harassing its internal operations. So think any transport/operations laws that may apply right up to the gangway.
 

Alcohol, however, has a massive trump card that gives states all the power to regulate in this space ... the 21st Amendment to the Constitution itself, which provides that: “[t]he transportation or importation into any state, territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.” It’s the phrase “in violation of the laws thereof” that gives TX the power to set the rules for cruise lines while within its jurisdiction.

 

One does not need a federal authorizing statute to subject a foreign flag vessel to a local law when the Constitution provides it itself! That is a large distinction from this vaccination issue.

 

I also find this particular topic VERY interesting ... you may recall a few years ago there was a  case decided by SCOUTS ... 7-2 (with the oddest collection of justices in the majority you’ll ever see ... ALITO wrote the opinion in which GINSBERG joined!). That was a case brought against the state of TN by Total Wine (I think ... or some large warehouse brand). They sued on the basis that the TN law requiring a 2 year residency prior to obtaining a liquor license was protectionism and violated the commerce AND dormant commerce clause of the US Constitution. SCOUTS agreed and struck down the TN law.  
 

Some would argue aspects of TX liquor laws are also protectionist in nature and ripe for a similar lawsuit. Now, the practical answer ... as understand it ... TX isn’t really restricting cruise lines in this space as much as they want to get paid the taxes on any port sales. Cruise lines all handle it differently ... some have a full bar and just hold processing until they are out to sea. Others let folks buy and charge the taxes to the passenger and let them order what they want. And yet others let cruisers use their packages at port and absorb the tax themselves BUT restrict port offerings to only TX liquors .. why? Because the tax rate on TX liquors while in TX is lower than the tax on imported liquors. 
 

I believe a few years ago @chengkp75posted a few times about the quirks of liquor laws for cruise ships while at port. Or at least I remember some posts to that effect as we were getting ready for our first cruise out of NYC.

Edited May 14, 2021 by Navis

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, Heymarco said:

For someone who doesn’t know much about maritime law, how can Texas prohibit certain brands of liquor from being sold onboard while in port but Florida can’t wait ban a vaccine requirement? They are not blocking interstate travel, it’s NCL who is pushing for the strict requirement. If other firms can sail from FL, seems like there are holes in both sides. Again, open to understand the law better. 

In addition to navis' summary, there is the factor of "overlapping jurisdiction", which is a large part of maritime law.  This is the overlap of the jurisdiction of the "flag state" (on the ship), overlaps with the jurisdiction of the "port state" (the nation the ship is docked in).  Traditionally, admiralty courts (US federal courts and some state courts) have held that "port state" law will not apply on the ship, unless the "safety or well being" of the port state is threatened.  And, as navis has shown SCOTUS has held that unless Congress specifically mentions foreign flag shipping in a law, then that law is not applicable to that foreign flag shipping.

 

Now, to the two situations you ask about.  Liquor sales are "commerce" within the state, and so the state can control which liqour (Texas stamped) can be sold, and also things like whether state sales tax can be charged on sales while in the port.  These are actions external to the ship, and therefore can fall under "port state" control, as can things like pollution regulations, etc.

 

The requirement for vaccination documentation is, however, an internal policy of the ship (a requirement to board), and as such does not fall under "port state" jurisdiction.  Further, the cruise itself, unlike a drink purchased in a Texas port, is international commerce, and as such falls, by the Constitution, under federal, and not state jurisdiction.

 

Whether or not other lines sail from Florida is irrelevant.  The vaccination requirement is not a legal mandate, it is a business decision on the part of one cruise line, so the other cruise lines can sail from Florida without mandating vaccinations, by meeting the CDC requirements for unvaccinated cruises.  Again, strictly a business decision, not any legal precedent being set.

[KennyFla]

9 hours ago, BermudaBound2014 said:

 

OMG... this is literally made me LOL. You can't possibly believe that. You do know that NCL just invested Millions in a new terminal in PoM., correct? You think they have disposable cash to invest in terminals outside of Florida? The infrastructure already exists in Florida. This chatter is all temporary.

 

Policies are changing so rapidly its hard to keep up. NCL will be back in Florida as soon as they are able.

Yes.  Florida went to all this trouble to get cruising going again to pull the rug out from underneath them at the last minute.  Sure.

 

I think that certain people on these boards just use events to make political statements.

[graphicguy]

Actually, I really like the thought of NCL cruising the Caribbean with Jamaica as it's embarkation/origin point.  I can see that as a positive.  I'm going to stay at an all inclusive before and after my Joy cruise in August.  And, it's cheaper than staying at a hotel anywhere near Brickell.

 

As far as politicizing this as Desantis has done, NCL represents probably anywhere from 25%-33% of cruise revenue out of FL.  That's a sizable chuck.  Nice try on his part.  But, if that business indeed goes to Jamaica, Galveston, New Orleans, etc permanently, he's going to look even more foolish by making stupid statements than he already has.

Edited May 14, 2021 by graphicguy

[MacMarauder]

13 hours ago, coaster said:

"Cruise lines have been operating in other parts of the world where there's no access to vaccine,” DeSantis said. 

 

 

Currently the biggest cruise port in the world is Singapore which is not remotely comparable to Florida with regards to COVID or much else. 

[BermudaBound2014]

43 minutes ago, graphicguy said:

As far as politicizing this as Desantis has done, NCL represents probably anywhere from 25%-33% of cruise revenue out of FL.  That's a sizable chuck.  Nice try on his part.  But, if that business indeed goes to Jamaica, Galveston, New Orleans, etc permanently, he's going to look even more foolish by making stupid statements than he already has.

 

1) Where did you get the figure that NCL accounts for 25-33% of Florida sailings? My calculations based on their overall share of the market are much smaller.

 

2) That business is not going to Jamaica, Galveston, New Orleans, etc... long term. The fact that people suggest this as even a remote possibility baffles me. Have you really looked at their financial sheet?

[rbschultz]

31 minutes ago, MacMarauder said:

 

Currently the biggest cruise port in the world is Singapore which is not remotely comparable to Florida with regards to COVID or much else. 

Not only that, but the cruises out of Singapore have to follow such strict guidelines including wearing a wristband for contact tracing. Hows that for freedom?

[RocketMan275]

11 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Whether or not other lines sail from Florida is irrelevant.  The vaccination requirement is not a legal mandate, it is a business decision on the part of one cruise line, so the other cruise lines can sail from Florida without mandating vaccinations, by meeting the CDC requirements for unvaccinated cruises.  Again, strictly a business decision, not any legal precedent being set.

What is relevant is this:  if given a choice between sailing a vaccinated ship without a mask and sailing an unvaccinated ship wearing a mask, I will choose the vaccinated ship.  I won't cruise wearing a mask.

BTW, my next cruise is out of NOLA on NCL.